As of March 25, 2026, Beijing time, the structure of new demand for Bitcoin at the enterprise level is showing a significant shift. In the past 30 days, Strategy, a single buyer, has accumulated approximately 45,000 BTC (according to CryptoQuant), becoming the absolute main force for new Bitcoin in enterprise treasuries during this period. Concurrent data indicates that this portion of buying accounts for about 76% of the newly added Bitcoin in enterprise treasuries, while other enterprises, excluding Strategy, have only purchased about 1,000 BTC. With the new enterprise buying pattern almost "contracted" by one company, the enterprise-level Bitcoin demand is evolving from a previously diversified buyer structure into a centralized model dominated by Strategy, a change that will reshape price support logic and risk distribution.
76% of Buying is Contracted by Strategy
Over the past 30 days, the data on enterprise treasuries for Bitcoin illustrated by CryptoQuant reflects a high degree of concentration. The report shows that Strategy has cumulatively purchased approximately 45,000 BTC during this period, which corresponds to about 76% of the scale of newly added Bitcoin in enterprise treasuries, almost constituting the bulk of the overall incremental demand from the enterprise side. This means that what should originally have been a diversified contribution of new reserves from multiple enterprises is now being overwhelmingly taken over by a single entity.
In stark contrast, other enterprises have collectively added only about 1,000 BTC over the same time window (according to CryptoQuant), which, compared to the historical peak phases of enterprise purchasing activity, has been described by relevant institutions as a nearly 99% cliff-like shrinkage. Against this backdrop, CryptoQuant's report highlighted the market judgment that "Strategy has become the de facto single important buyer of enterprise BTC reserves", intuitively depicting a sharp imbalance in the buyer structure—new demand for enterprise treasuries is nearly equivalent to "Strategy demand," while the diversity and redundancy of enterprise buying have been rapidly weakened.
Enterprise Buyers Pull Back Collectively: Who is Exiting?
From the perspective of structural proportion, the market statement that "the share of new purchases from non-Strategy enterprises is only about 2%" (as cited by Rhythm/techflow) highlights that the willingness of traditional enterprises to increase their Bitcoin holdings is significantly diminishing. When the vast majority of newly added enterprise treasury holdings come from the same enterprise, other enterprises may still have sporadic increases, but it is difficult to change the overall trend: the incremental buying at the enterprise level is highly concentrated, with marginal new entrants or expanding enterprises clearly decreasing.
It should be emphasized that the specific changes in the number of "participating enterprises significantly shrinking" remains verifiable information, as current data does not provide a credible statistical evolution of enterprise numbers. Therefore, based on existing data, it can only be confirmed that incremental buying is highly concentrated in Strategy, and conclusions about changes in the number of enterprises cannot yet be drawn, nor is it appropriate to cite specific figures from how many have dropped to how many. Structural concentration is a fact, while the extent of exit at the enterprise number level still requires more public disclosure and data verification.
In this context, the wait-and-see sentiment among enterprises has multiple potential drivers: first, the severe volatility of Bitcoin prices itself amplifies the volatility of asset values in financial reports, putting pressure on management for valuation and performance guidance; second, there are accounting and auditing challenges, such as how to confirm impairment and how to disclose fair value, which are still being negotiated in practice; third, the uncertainty of compliance and regulatory expectations, with some jurisdictions' attitudes towards enterprises directly holding Bitcoin, impacts on capital adequacy ratios, and risk weight setups could make enterprises more cautious. The accumulation of these multiple factors has caused many enterprises that originally intended to participate or continue increasing holdings to shift to a wait-and-see approach, while Strategy has leveraged this gap to amplify its buying presence.
Futures Liquidation and Spot Buying: Structural Collecting Amid Volatility
Around March 25, 2026, Beijing time, the drastic fluctuations in the derivatives market provided a distinct backdrop for enterprise spot buying. According to a single source from Jinse Finance/Coinglass, the total liquidation size of contracts across the network within 24 hours was approximately $313 million, with long positions liquidated around $89.97 million, short positions liquidated about $30.46 million, with the remaining related to cross-currency and other directions of forced clearing. This data reflects that high-leverage funds encountered concentrated liquidations in a short period, amplifying the instantaneous shock to prices.
As high-leverage positions were cleaned up, the continuous spot buying by Strategy over the past 30 days formed a striking funding picture: one end shows the "forced exit" from the futures market, with leveraged longs and shorts successively being liquidated; the other end has enterprise accounts "systematically collecting chips" primarily through spot purchasing. The high-leverage nature of futures contracts means that prices can trigger chain liquidations with relatively limited spot transactions, while enterprises with a long-term perspective and low funding costs can absorb selling pressure more comfortably amid such volatility.
It should be noted that this liquidation data comes from a single and highly time-sensitive source, which can only indicate that Bitcoin market volatility has intensified recently, and leveraged funds have encountered concentrated liquidations; it does not imply that such scale of liquidation will become a long-term norm, nor can it simply extrapolate to a "new average" of future volatility levels. However, when observing Strategy's buying and market structure, this funding picture of "futures being washed out, and spot being collected" reinforces the narrative tension of enterprises "collecting against the trend" amid volatility.
New Funding Channel in Europe: Bitcoin ETN Comes into View
Beyond the path of enterprises directly incorporating Bitcoin into their treasuries, the European market is also simultaneously opening up new funding channels. According to reports from Jinse Finance and Cointelegraph, BNP Paribas launched a Bitcoin ETN product during the same period, providing traditional financial institutions and qualified investors in Europe with a tool to gain exposure to Bitcoin prices without directly holding the asset. This means that some institutions that originally needed to purchase and store BTC themselves can now participate in this asset indirectly through securitized products.
Unlike enterprises directly buying BTC and adding it to their balance sheets, ETN-type products are more suitable for institutions and high-net-worth clients with relatively neutral risk preferences, yet still wishing to participate in the price volatility of crypto assets. Such products are typically embedded in traditional brokerage, bank wealth management, and asset management channels, facilitating distribution under existing compliance and risk control frameworks, thereby attracting funds that originally had doubts about aspects such as "technical custody, cold wallet management, and audit disclosure". For many institutions, ETNs provide a "financial asset exposure" rather than "on-balance sheet holding of digital assets".
With the gradual rise of financial derivative products such as ETNs in Europe and globally, some institutions may prefer to participate through such "asset exposure" tools instead of directly adding BTC to their enterprise treasuries. This preference shift may weaken the demand for enterprises to purchase coins directly—not due to a decrease in interest in Bitcoin itself, but rather a change in the mode of participation from "holding coins on-balance sheet" to "holding related securitized products off-balance-sheet or within portfolios". While Strategy continues to adhere to the path of holding coins on-balance sheet, other enterprises have more financial engineering alternatives to choose from.
Implicit Risks of Highly Concentrated Buying
From the perspectives of liquidity and pricing mechanisms, when new buying by enterprises heavily relies on a single entity, the market's sensitivity to the actions of that entity will be significantly amplified. Once Strategy slows down its buying pace, pauses, or even reverses its holdings, the large marginal demand contributed by it will quickly vanish, and the market's responsiveness to other capital flows and macro variables will be amplified. Long-term buying that was originally spread across multiple enterprises is now concentrated in one company, raising unavoidable concerns about "single-point failure".
At the same time, the rise of Strategy's voice in the landscape of enterprise holdings will also generate a chain reaction in market sentiment and opinion expectations. Every public announcement of purchasing or strategy adjustment will be interpreted as a reaffirmation or signal of wavering regarding the long-term value of Bitcoin; regulatory bodies and audit firms are also more likely to view it as a typical sample, examining the impact of large-scale enterprise holdings on financial stability, accounting standards, and information disclosure. As the influence concentrates on a single enterprise, any negative news about its financial health, financing capabilities, or governance structure may be magnified by the market as a systemic risk affecting the entire narrative of enterprise holdings.
Compared to the previously more decentralized enterprise treasury layouts, if multiple enterprises were increasing their holdings and allocations at different paces, even if individual enterprises reduced or stopped purchasing, the overall market impact would be dispersed. However, in the current structure, any directional change in Strategy's actions will have a more concentrated and intense impact. Whether it is buying tapering or potential selling pressure release, both could create a greater shock to prices in a short period; this represents the implicit systemic risks behind highly concentrated buying.
Next Stop for Enterprise Treasury Demand: Returning to Diversity or Extremes in Centralization?
In summary, current data indicates that the new demand for Bitcoin at the enterprise level has shown a clear structural imbalance: Strategy has contracted the majority of enterprise new BTC purchases, occupying about 76% share with approximately 45,000 BTC in monthly increments, while other enterprises have markedly retreated to the "supporting role," with new purchasing scale of only about 1,000 BTC, leading to a trend towards uniformity in the buyer structure. This enterprise treasury, originally hoped to be a "decentralized group of institutions," is now highly dependent on one company for incremental growth.
In the medium to short term, as long as Strategy maintains the current or a similar pace of continuous purchasing, enterprise demand is still substantially supportive of Bitcoin prices, especially in an environment of high volatility in derivatives and frequent liquidations of leveraged funds; its stable spot buying can be viewed as a "deep support base." However, it is also necessary to see that this structural concentration makes the market highly sensitive to Strategy's actions—every increase, pause, reduction, or even financing move will be amplified as an important variable affecting price expectations.
Looking ahead, the trajectory of enterprise treasury demand will depend on several key external variables: first, the macro interest rate environment; expectations of interest rate cuts and recovery of liquidity may enhance enterprises' willingness to allocate Bitcoin and other risk assets; second, the evolution of regulatory and accounting rules—if relevant standards become clearer in measurement methods, impairment handling, and disclosure requirements, it can help alleviate concerns of enterprise management and auditing teams; third, the development of more institutional products (such as ETNs, ETFs, etc.), which may redirect some "direct holding demand" while also indirectly promoting more enterprises to return to on-balance sheet holdings by increasing overall market acceptance. Regardless of how these directions evolve, the current reality is: on the stage of enterprise treasury demand, Strategy is momentarily in the center of nearly solo performance, while the market is waiting—whether this will be a transitional period returning to diversity, or the beginning of heading toward a more extreme concentration pattern.
Join our community to discuss together and become stronger!
Official Telegram group: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
